Middle Eastern Realities

The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama
Administration

Richard Baehr

Professor Barry Rubin argues in his latest article
that the Administration’s approach to the new Middle East is becoming clearer,
and that it represents the worst single strategic blunder in American foreign
policy in the Middle East in decades. In essence, the Obama team has decided
that it can live with and work with Islamist regimes in the Middle East, so
long as Al Qaeda is not the group in power.

In other words the Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, if it succeeds in
taking power in Egypt and other Arab countries currently in turmoil. Rubin
quotes the new policy as described in a Washington Post article
and then offers his reaction:

“The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various
movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal
assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological
differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.”

Get it?
Al-Qaeda is bad because it wants to attack U.S. embassies, the World Trade
Center, and the Pentagon.

BUT the Muslim Brotherhood is good! Because it
merely wants to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule
90 million people, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the
Palestinian Authority, help Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy,
and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.

I’m sure you
can see the difference. This is the nonsense that the administration has been
working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president’s
advisor on terrorism, elements in the CIA, and White House ideologues. The State
and Defense departments are probably horrified.

Here’s the next
paragraph:

“`We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these
countries,'” said a senior administration official….`It’s the behavior of
political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their
relationship with Islam.'”

That first phrase is correct. We shouldn’t be
afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. Islam has always been
present in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia or post-Saddam Iraq, and even Iran
before its revolution and Afghanistan not under the Taliban. But we should be
very afraid of Islamism in the politics of these countries. “

. . . .

For weeks, the Administrations’ favorite newspaper, the New York Times has
been paving the way for the new policy with a series of opinion pieces and news
stories on the new “moderate” face of the Muslim Brotherhood, their commitment
to non-violence, their discipline and social service role.

The new policy is in some ways consistent with the docile American attitude
towards Iran- where engagement was tried and failed, weak sanctions were applied
with enough loopholes to make them like swiss cheese slices, the anti-regime
demonstrations were ignored and garnered no support, and military action was
never contemplated. The result- the Administration is now preparing for a
nuclear Iran , and all that is left is finding a way to contain Iran’s
aggressive posture once it becomes a nuclear power.

A senior Hamas figure said Friday that official and unofficial US sources have asked the Islamist group to refrain from making any statements regarding contacts with Washington, this following reports that a senior American official is due to arrive in an Arab country in the coming days to relay a telegram from the Obama Administration.

The Hamas figure told the London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper that the Americans fear discussing the talks publicly would “rouse the Jewish lobby and other pressure groups in the US and cause them to pressure the administration to suspend all talks with Hamas.”

The Hamas figure, who is close to Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the government in Gaza, added, “This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don’t want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of pressure groups (in the US) and cause problems.”

He said Hamas’ exiled leadership in Damascus is overseeing the contacts behind closed doors.

On Wednesday a Washington-based Arabic newspaper quoted a senior official as saying that an American envoy is scheduled to meet with Hamas representatives in an Arab country and hand them a letter from the Obama Administration.

According to the report, the official said Washington has no choice but to work with Hamas due to its influence in the Arab and Islamic world.

Posted By David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin On June 25, 2010 @ 12:25 am In FrontPage | 31 Comments

In a letter to President Obama this week, 87 Senators urged[1] the president to support Israel’s right to self-defense against the threats of terrorism from Hamas and Hezbollah and a nuclear-bound Iran that has repeatedly pledged to wipe Israel off the map. In another time, such counsel would be redundant. For most of Israel’s 60-year existence, the Jewish state has been able to count on the stalwart support of its American ally against the many enemies arrayed against it. As Arab states launched wars with exterminationist intent, and as the international community undermined Israel through the agency of the United Nations, America alone stood in Israel’s corner.

Under President Obama, however, such support for an embattled friend is no longer automatic. As Iran races virtually unimpeded toward a nuclear weapon, the Obama administration scolds Israel for daring to build new houses in its capital of Jerusalem. While Hamas, aided by Turkish jihadists, arms for a new war against Israel, the White House demands that Israel exercise a suicidal restraint. As Israel becomes ever more isolated, the Obama administration continues to reach out to its enemies in the Arab and Muslim world. In their new pamphlet, David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin trace the deterioration of the U.S.-Israeli relationship under President Obama, now at its lowest point in three decades. And they show that by emboldening Israel’s enemies, the administration is sowing the seeds of a new conflict, one will that could make it complicit in a new and devastating war against Israel. As a result of President Obama’s wrongheaded policies, Israel’s security – and America’s – is increasingly imperiled.

Remains of 72 people found at World Trade Center site of Muslim Attack — NO MEGA MOSQUE AT GROUND ZERO

We are still finding bodies of Americans murdered by Muslim terrorists on September 11th. Still. And the Islamic supremacists want to build a monster mosque on that sacred burial ground, a giant symbol of Islamic supremacism on the cherished site of land they think they conquered?

The sifting of more than 800 cubic yards (612 cubic meters) of debris recovered from ground zero and underneath roads around the lower Manhattan site began in April and ended Friday.The greatest number of remains – 37 – were found from material underneath West Street, a highway on the west side of ground zero. The new debris was uncovered as construction work made new parts of the site accessible.

The city began a renewed search for human remains in 2006. More than 1,800 remains have been found.

The Islamist movement that threatens Judeo-Christian western culture can be viewed in one of two ways: as a fundamentalist, misguidedly pious religious phenomenon that appeals to a wide swath of the Muslim masses, or as a calculated, cynical attempt to grab both the power and wealth that the West holds — orchestrated by an Islamic elite who don’t actually care about the finer points of the Quran or Sharia law, except when either might serve to further their overall purpose. The important difference between the way that George W. Bush approached the problem of radical Islam and the manner in which Barack Obama deals with the issue – or claims to be trying to deal it – involves these two different points of view.

At various instances during his terms in office Bush tried, mostly in vain, to find and deal with moderates among Islamic leadership, hoping to thus isolate extremist leaders and their radical, fundamentalist followers. It was a flawed vision, but an appealing one, for it attacked the problem at a grass roots level. If radical Islam is primarily a political phenomenon then it should be possible to separate radical organizations like the Taliban, al Qaeda and Hamas from ordinary moderate Muslims who reject fundamentalist dogma and instead blend secular values in with their theology in the western style. That’s a tough road to take, especially given the lack of any meaningful educational system in the modern sense in the Muslim world. Yet, in Iraq the majority of a relatively educated populace (by Islamic-state standards anyway) did indeed reject the radicals in their midst once coalition forces provided the kind of security needed to allow the Iraqi people to take charge of their lives in safety.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has effectively abandoned any hope of cultivating a moderate, secularlist Islam that might counterbalance the fundamentalist, radical variety. Given the ever-increasing power and influence of the extremists, even in a nation like Turkey that we once thought of as the model of a “moderate Muslim” state, the president’s approach is more realistic than Bush’s utopian visions. Moderate Muslims, cowed by the murderous fanatics who infect Islam throughout the globe, were never of much use in the war on terror anyway and aren’t likely to be in the future. In a practical sense, Obama’s policies reflect the reality that Islam cannot be reformed in any meaningful sense. But his reaction to that reality has been to try to appease the extremists rather than rendering them harmless. It’s a strategy that merely emboldens radical Muslims, who are thus convinced more than ever that the West lacks the stomach to see this war through.

Obama’s counter-terrorism czar, John Brennan provided an example of the Obama administration’s approach in a speech he gave a few weeks ago[1]. Utilizing the kind of Orwellian newspeak that has become a hallmark of this administration, Brennan said that “…we need to try to build up the more moderate elements” within Hezbollah. It’s at least the second time that Brennan has referred to “moderate elements” within the radical Shia militia, but Brennan surely knows that there are no moderate elements within Hezbollah, just as though there are no moderates within Hamas, the Taliban or al Qaeda. So, why use such a term? There’s only one rational answer: if this administration is going to negotiate with terrorists – in effect trying to find a way to buy them off – it cannot appear to be doing so. While America remains a house divided when it comes to pressing forward war against the jihadis, the “millions for defense, but not a penny for tribute” spirit still resonates among Americans of every political stripe. Obama would face intense criticism on both sides of the aisle if he announced that he was going to negotiate a settlement with terrorists, but when the administration packages that strategy as an attempt to nurture so-called moderates, it sounds much more palatable, so that’s how his counter-terrorism czar is going to sell it.

This is of course the same John Brennan[2] who said: “Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Unfortunately, to the radicals that this administration is trying to court, it is both legitimate and Islamic to murder innocent men, women and children in the course of this “holy struggle.” Again, Brennan knows that. He was in the CIA[3] long enough to understand the realities of Islam, but his current assignment involves papering-over those inconvenient facts, not confronting the cold truth.

Some commentators have accused Obama of sympathizing with the radicals, or possibly being a “closet Muslim” himself. That kind of reaction is understandable, given the president’s poorly-concealed hostility towards Israel and his attempts to curry favor from Islamic states. Yet, the more likely reason that Obama chooses to trod down this dangerous path is because he’s an academic and, like most academics, believes that the right combination of words and concessions can soothe the most savage beasts. It’s a naïve strategy, of the sort that only a smug intellectual can embrace. Appeasement is also a forlorn hope, one that delays an inevitable conflict rather than preventing it, as western leaders from Jefferson[4] through Chamberlain[5] painfully learned. Barack Obama seems determined to take America down that doomed path once more. The inevitable consequences of the president’s policy are obvious to even casual students of history and Islam: America and Israel will surely pay for Obama’s naiveté in blood. The only real questions are when and how much.

Balderdash. He either doesn’t understand the history and fundamental nature of the religion he purports to revere and follow, or he’s useful idiot contributing to the ‘soft Jihad.’ Either way, if the global caliphate scheme were ever to succeed, this guy would be among thousands of expendables who helped bring it about.

Camp Pendleton’s Asif Balbale is one of only four Muslum chaplains in the U.S. Navy. He says part of his job is to instruct troops in Islamic traditions. (Photo by Bill Wechter – Staff photographer)

The newest pastor at Camp Pendleton drives a small sedan with a piece of scripture emblazoned on the rear window: “If you see something good, may God bless it and keep it from evil eyes.”

The words are written in Arabic, a clue that Asif Balbale is no ordinary chaplain.

The slight-framed Murrieta resident is the only Muslim chaplain among 60 members of the clergy at the sprawling Marine Corps base and one of only four Muslims in the U.S. Navy chaplain corps, which numbers more than 680.

As the only imam on the West Coast, Balbale’s role goes beyond typical pastoral care.

“Part of my job is to educate people on what it means to be a Muslim,” the 30-year-old said during an interview at his office at the base’s Amphibious Assault Schools Battalion.

“There have been a lot of stereotypes and negativity, and it is essential to build bridges. Part of that is teaching my faith,” he said.

The instruction includes teaching Marines some of the religion’s basics. That includes the five pillars of Islam —- declaration of faith, prayer, charity, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan and a once-in-a-lifetime pilgrimage to Mecca, the holiest site in Islamic life.

“These are among the kinds of things I tell people when they are going to Iraq or Afghanistan,” he said. “Part of how we are fighting these wars is an effort to win hearts and minds, and that is where I play a role in teaching what the culture is like and how to respect the people.”

He tells the troops that Islam does not condone suicide bombing, putting women and children at risk or forbidding girls from attending school —- all acts carried out by the Taliban and its supporters.

“None of that is in line with Islam,” said Balbale, a father of one child with another on the way.

The troops he’s encountered since arriving at Camp Pendleton in April have been a little curious about his faith, but very welcoming, he said.

“It’s a new experience for them, but all most Marines care about is whether I am going to help them,” Balbale said.

9/11 a defining moment

An Indian by birth, Balbale grew up in southern Kuwait, where his parents moved for jobs and where they still live.

The family was forced to flee that country during the first Gulf War, eventually arriving at a refugee camp in Jordan before going to India.

They stayed there until returning to Kuwait in 1993, two years after the war ended.

Devout while growing up, Balbale was nonetheless on course to become a petroleum engineer, leaving Kuwait in 2000 for the University of Idaho.

He later transferred to Montana Tech, and was in Butte when al-Qaida terrorists attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

He and his Muslim friends were “shellshocked,” Balbale said.

“We were worried about what it was going to look like for us, what was it going to mean to be a Muslim in this country?” he said. “For me, it was like, ‘OK, what can I do to help this nation?'”

He ultimately decided to join the military as a demonstration of his commitment to his adopted homeland, and his first stop was an Army recruiting office in September 2004.

“But I was underweight —- I was 96 pounds soaking wet,” he said.

That was more than 10 pounds under the Army’s minimum weight standard. “So I went to see a Navy recruiter, and he said, ‘We only need 94 pounds.'”

Through his military service, Balbale was able to expedite the process of becoming a U.S. citizen, gaining that status in 1995.

He would go on to spend three years as a machinist’s mate, and during a deployment aboard the San Diego-based USS Boxer he began his turn toward the chaplaincy.

Balbale, who is 5 feet 4 inches tall and has filled out to about 124 pounds, was intending to apply for officer candidate school when he mistakenly sent an e-mail to a chaplain recruiter.

That led to an extended conversation with the recruiter, and a subsequent meeting in Okinawa with a Muslim chaplain.

He came to believe that heart-to-heart talks with shipmates were readying him for the ministry.

“I was just being a friend, but I later realized it was God preparing me,” Balbale said.

In 2007, he entered the chaplain candidate program and eventually became a lieutenant.

He completed his religious training by earning a master’s degree in spiritual care and pastoral counseling at the Claremont School of Theology in Los Angeles County.

Balbale isn’t the only unique religious leader at the base.

Camp Pendleton also is home to the Navy’s only Buddhist chaplain, Jeanette Shin, who is in Afghanistan with the 1st Marine Logistics Group.

Country, God and religion

Much like Shin, Balbale adds a more worldly view to the base ministry, said Navy Capt. Ollis Mozon, commanding base chaplain.

“Instead of us Protestant or Catholic chaplains telling people what we think we know about Islam, he gives us the true perspective,” Mozon said.

Aside from a gold crescent attached to his lapel, Balbale’s religion is identifiable by his cap —- a white knitted kufi worn by many Muslims.

Balbale will spend the next three years at Camp Pendleton. Although he’s assigned to a training battalion that does not deploy, he eventually could be part of a combat unit and sent overseas.

In the meantime, he’s reaching out to the estimated 200 Muslim troops at Camp Pendleton to let them know he is there and will soon launch a weekly service at a base chapel.

He turns aside teasing by friends who remind him he could have left the Navy and earned a healthy income as a petroleum engineer.

“God has put me in the place where he wants me to be,” he said. “I can’t think of any job like this one where I can serve my country, my God and my religion all at once.”

Diffusing the present dangerous confrontation between Islam and the West demands rational impartial and cool heads to untangle facts from myth, understand the Muslims’ mindset, and redress any grievances on either side.The Muslims’ perennial complaint is that the imperialist West—all colonial powers of the past, as well as the United States of America—have victimized them for decades and even centuries and continue to do so in every conceivable way. The litany of the alleged wrongdoings by the West is encyclopedic. To begin with, the West has shown utter contempt for the legitimate rights of the Muslim nation by arbitrarily dividing much of the Islamic land into fractured entities, plundering its resources, and topping these crimes by installing in its midst its illegitimate stepchild of Israel—a huge thorn in their side, so they complain. “A grain of truth is needed to make a mountain of lies believable,” is an old saw. In fairness to Muslims, there is some substance to their claims against the West. For now, let us focus on the general mindset of Muslims which bears heavily on the hostility toward the West—a serious hostility that may bring about the dreaded Armageddon.* Patriarchy and authoritarianism: The Muslim’s mind is imprinted with authoritarianism which starts with the supreme authority, Allah, through his one and only prophet, Muhammad, his Caliphs or Imams, and the high-ranking religious divines all the way down to the village clergy. This authoritarian mentality encompasses all aspects of life for the Muslim. The king and his dominion as the viceroy of God, the Emir and his despotic ways, the Khan and his unchallenged rule over the tribe, the village headsman and his extensive power, and finally the father and his iron grip at home over the women and children. All these authority figures are male.

The authoritarian type poses numerous problems and presents many ramifications—ramifications much too important and complex to be comprehensively treated here. For now, it is important to understand that a person with the authoritarian personality is an extremist. He can be docility itself under certain circumstances and a maniacal murdering brute under others. He is the type who would just as happily kill or die, when he is directed to do so. He would, for instance, gladly strap on an explosive vest, in obedience to a superior’s order, and detonate it in a crowd of innocent civilians without the slightest hesitation.

* Blind obedience: A dangerous feature of the authoritarian personality is the relative lack of independent thinking. This deficiency makes the person highly amenable to manipulation. Islam, by its rigidly authoritarian make up, robs a Muslim of independent thinking to the extent that the believer blindly adopts it as his infallible system of belief. Hence, the religion of Islam is guilty of conditioning masses of people as easily manipulatable instruments in the hands of authority figures.

Studies have shown that the authoritarian personality type can be found among all people, including Americans. The important difference is in the degree and prevalence of the condition. Islam breeds vast numbers of extremists, while in America, for instance, the prevalence is significantly lower and less severe.

* Focus on goal: To Muslims, the goal is everything. As religious fascism, Islam condones any and all means to achieve its goals. The ultimate objective of Islam is the rule of the entire world under the Islamic Ummah—never mind that these life-in-hand soldiers of Allah disagree with one another regarding the Ummah itself and who is going to reign over it. That’s a “family dispute” that they will resolve by their usual favorite method—brute force. Each Islamic sect believes that it has the Prophet and Allah on its side and it will prevail over the other. For now they have to work diligently to achieve the intermediary goal of defeating all non-believers. There are countless instances that substantiate Muslims’ “End justifies the means” guiding principle. This policy dates back to Muhammad himself. Muhammad repeatedly made peace covenants with his adversaries, only to violate them as soon as he was in advantageous position to do so. Betrayal, deception and outright lies are fully condoned in furthering the work of Islam. In the present-day world, the work of Islam is defined by a deeply-entrenched and influential clergy who issue fatwa—rulings—that become directives and laws to the faithful.

Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic state, for one, made extensive use of the fatwa. Widely-known in the west is Khomeini’s fatwa condemning Selman Rushdie to death for his book. A less known fatwa of Khomeini during the last Iran-Iraq war led to the slaughter of thousands of Iranian children. Children, nearly all under 15 years of age, were given plastic keys to paradise as they were commanded by the fatwa of the imam to rush forward to clear minefields for the tanks to follow. The Islamic murderers, in obedience to the fatwa of a bloodthirsty man of Allah, had no problem in deceiving the clueless lads clinching made – in – China plastic keys to paradise.

Such is the existentialistic threat of Islam. It is a rigid stone-age authoritarian system with a stranglehold over many of the nearly one and a half billion people under its command.

* Fatalism: One of the greatest subtle, yet important differences between the Muslim’s mindset and that of the people in the West is the extent to which Muslims are fatalistic. There is hardly a statement that a Muslim makes without being conditional—conditional on the will of Allah. “I shall see you tomorrow, Allah willing,” “You will make it home, Allah willing,” “Things will work out, Allah willing,” and on and on and on. To the Muslim, Allah is on the job—on every job. Allah, with his invisible mighty hand, literally does and runs everything. “Allah’s hand is above all other hands,” adorns every imaginable space in Islamic lands—a telling point about the Muslim’s fatalism and submission to the omnipotent omnipresent hand. If something happens, it is Allah’s will. If it doesn’t, it is Allah’s will. The rank and file Muslim has little will of his own. It absolves him of any and all responsibility. This mentality is in stark contrast with the “take charge” and “can do” mentality characteristic of Americans and others.
* Psychological uniqueness: People as a group or as individuals are different and none is perfectly healthy psychologically. We all have a loose wheel or two as we travel the bumpy road of life. Yet, most people manage to stay on course most of the time, with perhaps a stop or two at a repair shop of a mental health professional.

Most psychological disorders are exaggerations, deficits or surfeits of the generally accepted norm—whatever the norm may be. When caution, for instance, is practiced past suspicion, then we have paranoia; when reasonable fear is exercised beyond any justification, then there is phobia. The degree and severity of a condition frequently determine the presence or absence of psychopathology.

Muslims share a common Islamic psychological milieu, they are on an Islamic “diet,” whether they live in Islamic lands or in societies predominantly non-Islamic. The psychological condition of any Muslim group or individual is directly dependent on the kind and amount of Islamic diet they consume. The Islamic diet has numerous ingredients—some of which are wholesome, some are dangerously toxic, and some are between the two extremes.

Over the years, the Islamic leaders have found it expedient to feed the masses mainly the toxic ingredients to further their own interests. Individuals and groups, for instance, have used the immense energizing power of hatred to rally the faithful; the cohesive force of polarization to create in-group solidarity; and, the great utility value of blaming others for their real and perceived misfortunes. Jews have been their favorite and handy scapegoats from day one. To this day, as true fascists, like the Nazis, Muslims blame just about everything on the Jews.

Providing a comprehensive inventory of the psychological profile of the Muslims is beyond the scope of this article. Yet, there is no question that the psychological makeup of a Muslim, depending on the extent of his Muslim-ness, is different from that of non-Muslims. This difference, often irreconcilable as things stand presently, is at the core of the clash of Islam with the West.

* Conclusion. Admittedly, the non-Islamic culture is no panacea. It has, however, one outstanding feature the Islamic lacks—it allows for liberty with all its attendants— good, bad, or indifferent. Those who have experienced liberty, no inducement is likely to make them give it up—particularly not the fictional promises of the Islamists that have failed in the past and are doomed to fail even more miserably in the future.

The best, yet difficult resolution of the conflict is to do what hundreds of thousands of Muslims have already done. They have abandoned the slaveholder Islam: they broke loose from the yoke of the exploitative clergy, renounced Islamofascisim, purged the discriminatory and bizarre teachings in the Quran and the Hadith, and left the suffocating tent of dogmatic Islam for the life-giving expanse of liberty.

Within the emancipating and accommodating haven of liberty, those who wish to remain Muslim can retain and practice the good teachings of Islam but renounce intolerance, hatred and violence. It takes great effort and courage to ascend from the degrading pit of slavery to the mount of emancipation. Yet, it is both possible and exhilarating to do it, since many have done so successfully and happily. As more and more people leave the shackles of religious slavery, more and more will follow, and the long-suffering Muslims, victimized by Islam itself for far too long, will be a free people in charge of their own life and destiny. It is a painful process of growing up, of asserting one’s coming of age, and marching lockstep with the free members of the human race.

Slavery of the mind is as evil as the slavery of the body. Islamofascisim enslaves them both.